The reason I asked you that is to illustrate something: We use it, yet we cannot prove it under emprical models. We not only use it, we need it - to make sense.
God is like that. Sometimes called the "uncaused cause", He provides a transcendental unifying origin for all of the axioms/trasncendentals that we take for granted. In unifying He provides a rational basis, a reason for reality as we know it. To my mind, He provides a logical basis for the pursuit of knowledge. No God leaves me without a reason (for reality, transcendental truth/axiom - in short anything not directly verifiable by the scientific method), and seems to me quite irrational.
I'm a student myself; this board is a good reality check. Most have been very patient and kind even in disagreement.
"The reason I asked you that is to illustrate something: We use it, yet we cannot prove it under emprical models. We not only use it, we need it - to make sense."
No, that philosophical contention is not used in science. Formal logic isn't used in science. For example, light's ability to act like a wave and a particle violates the law. Quantum mechanics in its entirety violates the law.
"God is like that. Sometimes called the "uncaused cause", He provides a transcendental unifying origin for all of the axioms/trasncendentals that we take for granted."
But, these transcendentals remain unfalsifiable. I believe the problem with constructing these philosophical arguments is the lack of contingency. While we may construct formal arguments for a proposition, it is not necessarily true *unless* actual evidence suggest so. However, since God is not testable, He remains a belief that cannot be objectively considered, in a scientific context, therefore, using him as a basis to falsify scientific entities is, in my opinion, fallacious. I politely disagree with you on this contention.
"In unifying He provides a rational basis, a reason for reality as we know it. To my mind, He provides a logical basis for the pursuit of knowledge."
Certainly, belief in God may provide the framework for your life and so on. But, my main point of disagreement is that we cannot construct philosophical arguments to refute scientific entities.
"No God leaves me without a reason (for reality, transcendental truth/axiom - in short anything not directly verifiable by the scientific method), and seems to me quite irrational."
Possibly. It's a matter of opinion and belief. I don't really think that God, if truly existent and transcendental, can be rationalized into formal philosophical arguments. His Nature seems too wondrous for humans to comprehend.
"I'm a student myself; this board is a good reality check. Most have been very patient and kind even in disagreement."
As am I and it's pleasure talking with you.
We use it because it seems to make sense, and if it did not we would not use it. The core axioms were selected for their utility, not because they have some transcendent philosophical significance. As long as you presume otherwise, you will be wandering blindingly. As I mentioned previously, there is not even perfect agreement among mathematicians as to which axioms we should and should not be using.
God is like that. Sometimes called the "uncaused cause", He provides a transcendental unifying origin for all of the axioms/trasncendentals that we take for granted.
So you invent another axiom ("God") to create a relationship between the other axioms. What you have just stated not only is semantically null in that you are shuffling axiom deck chairs to no substantive consequence (it creates no new derivations), your particular deck chair arrangement violates Occam's Razor. Per your argument above (using a unifying God axiom), the mathematical proof of Occam's Razor still holds and so your argument can be tidily invalidated from your own premises. Any hypothesis that fails the test of Occam's Razor is ipso facto irrational as a belief.
Get it now?